Tag Archives: hispanics

Michelle Fields is completely wrong on amnesty and Latinos

Michelle Fields

Libertarian Fox News contributor Michelle Fields. Photo author unknown.

Fox News’ Latino website has recently published an opinion piece by libertarian FNC contributor Michelle Fields, who therein attacks conservative columnist Ann Coulter for pointing out the inconvenient truth about amnesty’s consequences and the majority of Latino immigrants. Fields believes Ann Coulter’s written remarks are xenophobic and based only on stereotypes.

Essentially, Fields’ claims, and her attacks on Coulter, can be summed up as follows:

Claim #1: Latinos are not a bunch of government dependents, but mostly a community of hardworking taxpayers, and they do not support Big Government or liberal/socialist ideologies. They share many beliefs with Republicans, such as faith and belief in hard work, and could very well vote GOP. Thus, the GOP is to blame for its failure to win over Latinos.

Claim #2: Amnesty will not kill the GOP.

Claim #3: Rejecting “immigration reform” because it could harm the GOP is unpatriotic and unjust.

All of her claims, without exception, are dead wrong. I’ll show you why.

Firstly, while I don’t want to generalize, and while not all Latinos are government dependents, the vast majority of them are. The typical Latino family in the US is led by a single mother. If she works, her income is so low she doesn’t pay any income taxes and receives the Earned Income Tax Credit – effectively a subsidy from US taxpayers. If she doesn’t work, she receives various forms of welfare, including 99 weeks of free unemployment compensation.

For food, mom gets food stamps and other aid, while her kids get 2-3 free meals at school every day.

Her kids are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and can receive student loans, college aid, and in-state tuition rates.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare. (Latinos have the lowest insurance rate of any demographic group in the country.)

Why would those people vote for a party (the GOP) that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and reduce the government programs they do live off?

Wouldn’t self-interest dictate voting for a party that will let them continue receiving all the current giveaways from Uncle Sam, and perhaps give them even more?

Most Hispanics in America today are born out of wedlock to teen mothers. Hispanics are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock to a teen mother, to do poorly in school, to drop out of high school, to be unemployed and on welfare, to commit crime, and to go to prison. (Of course, the former social ills lead to the latter – children born out of wedlock, especially to teen mothers, have their lives screwed up at the start, if you pardon my language.)

Therefore, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Hispanics overwhelmingly supports Big Government. According to very recent polling by Pew Hispanic Polling, the Kaiser Foundation, and others:

While this is the first time I agree with Rachel Maddow on anything, Maddow was nonetheless absolutely right to note that:

“There’s no great mystery here. Latino have the lowest rates of health coverage in the country, and strongly believe public access to affordable care should be a basic societal guarantee.

In other words, most Latinos believe the exact opposite of most Republicans. The GOP wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety; Latino voters want it protected. Republicans want to gut Medicare and Medicaid; Latinos see both programs as critical.

“This is going to hurt Republicans,” Matt Barreto, cofounder of Latino Decisions, a nonpartisan national polling firm, told Levey. “When Republicans keep saying they will repeal the health law, Latinos hear the party is going to take away their healthcare.”

Since the 2012 election, we’ve heard repeatedly from Republicans that Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP and, if the party could only use more effective language, Latino voters would gravitate to the conservative party. And yet, the evidence to the contrary is increasingly overwhelming.”

Or, as the LA Times has noted:

“As Republican leaders try to woo Latino voters with a new openness to legal status for the nation’s illegal immigrants, the party remains at odds with America’s fastest-growing ethnic community on another key issue: healthcare.”

According to other polling by Pew Hispanic Research and others, Latinos aren’t any more conservative on social issues, either. In fact, they support gay marriage and abortion by wider margins than anyone else except Jewish Americans, women, and youngsters (themselves also traditional Democratic electorates).

For example, a June 19th, 2013 poll by Pew found that 52% of all Hispanics, including 54% of Catholic Hispanics, 57% of “native-born” Hispanics, and 59% of those Hispanics for whom English is their first language, support gay marriage legalization. Among ethnic groups, only Jewish Americans support the legality of gay marriage and abortion by wider margins.

So Ann Coulter was absolutely right, and Michelle Fields was dead wrong, about Hispanics’ political views: the vast majority of them ARE strident liberals, ARE dependent on the federal government from cradle to grave, and DO support Big Government. Those are not stereotypes. Those are facts.

And Republicans can’t woo these people. You can’t convert a Big Government liberal to free-market conservatism anymore than you can convince an Islamist to forego jihad.

The GOP cannot win the Hispanic vote unless it becomes the second party of Big Government and social liberalism. But that would defeat the party’s purpose, and the Dems will always outdo Republicans in the “handing out taxpayers’ dollars” game.

But remaining (or making the GOP again) the party of limited constitutional government means foregoing the vast majority of the Hispanic vote. That is a fact. Latinos love Big Government.

Miss Fields claims that the Latino vote is winnable for the GOP. But that is impossible for the above reasons. And all election results show that.

In fact, in 1984, while the general American populace voted for Ronald Reagan in even greater numbers than in 1980, Hispanics voted for Walter Mondale in even greater numbers than they had for Jimmy Carter: 61% for Mondale versus “only” 56% for Carter.

In other words, Latinos missed the Carter Administration so badly that they voted for Walter Mondale, an advocate of the “nuclear freeze” and tax hikes, in even greater numbers than they had for Carter!

Ronald Reagan won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 1980 and only 37% in 1984.

But Republicans passed, and he signed, amnesty in 1986. Didn’t Latinos reward Republicans for amnesty thereafter?

Actually, no, they didn’t. Just two years later, they voted for Dukakis in even greater numbers (69%) than for Mondale (61%) and Carter (56%)! George H. W. Bush won only 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988.

But he made it easier to immigrate to the US, created the Diversity Visa Lottery, and eliminated the English language test on the naturalization exam. Didn’t that earn him the Hispanic vote?

No, it didn’t. He won only 25% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 – even less than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 and 71% in 1996.

But didn’t George W. Bush show Republicans can win the Hispanic vote?

No, he didn’t. He won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and only 40% (not the 44% Miss Fields claims) in 2004. Even then, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore (62%) and John Kerry (58%).

Even America’s loudest advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, John McCain, won only 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008; Latinos backed Obama then by 67%.

But most outrageously, four years later, Latinos thought Obama deserved a second term, and they voted for him in 2012 in numbers even greater than in 2008 (71% vs 67%). This is consistent with their entire history of overwhelmingly backing stridently liberal presidential candidates: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. They’ve never met a strident liberal they didn’t love.

(Source: Pew Hispanic polling.)

And now, very recent polling shows that if Joe Biden was the Democratic and Marco Rubio the Republican nominee, Biden would handily beat Rubio – a leading advocate of amnesty and a Hispanic himself – 60% to 26%, i.e. Rubio would receive even less of the Hispanic vote than the strongly anti-amnesty Mitt Romney, despite being a Hispanic himself!

The Latino vote is utterly unwinnable for the GOP. Therefore, it is in the Party’s and the Country’s interest to halt further immigration (from all countries of the world, not just Latin American ones) and to ensure that the illegals already in America are deported.

Ann Coulter is also absolutely right to point out, and Michelle Fields dead wrong to deny, that amnesty will kill the GOP.

Just look at Miss Fields’ home state of California to see what would happen to the GOP.

Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – from Latin American countries (mostly Mexico) has turned California into such a liberal state that NO Republican can be elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long, it gave America such great Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S.I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is such a liberal state that the Dems have the governorship and supermajorities in both houses of the state legislatures, allowing them to raise taxes anytime without limits. In 2010, Californians chose Babsy Boxer and Governor Moonbeam over two bright conservative women – Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman – one of them pro-life, the other pro-choice, and rejected a proposal to suspend California’s cap-and-tax scheme until the state unemployment rate shrinks.

Last year, Californians gave the Dems a supermajority in the State Senate.

Similar stories are repeated throughout the country. New Mexico, like California, is lost forever. Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Only Texas and Arizona remain secure – for now.

When Texas goes, America goes.

As Ann Coulter rightly points out, if amnesty is passed, the entire country will have the electorate of California. And there will be no going back. Look again at the Hispanic voting patterns of the last 33 years to see what electorate America would have. An electorate 71% of which thought Barack Obama had done a good job and deserved a second term. An electorate 61% of which missed the Carter Administration so badly that it voted for its vice president. An electorate 69% of which voted for Michael Dukakis.

But it would actually be much worse than that: as Sarah Palin points out, amnesty would be a heinous betrayal of working-class Americans, who would see their jobs stolen by illegal immigrants.

Thus we come to Miss Fields’ last claim: that rejecting “immigration reform” is unpatriotic and unjust. A patriot is one who does what is good for his country.

Amnesty – as Miss Fields herself has noted – would be very bad for the country. It would reward lawbreaking and put a huge new strain on American taxpayers. It would also turn the entire country into California. That would be disastrous for America.

Thus, by blocking amnesty, House Republicans are doing the PATRIOTIC thing. They’re doing the right thing for the Country and the Party.

To conclude, Miss Fields is dead wrong on all counts. The vast majority of Latinos ARE government dependents and DO support Big Government. Amnesty would kill the GOP, and conservatism in general, forever. And stopping it is the patriotic thing to do.

If Miss Fields is the classy young woman I believe she is, she should and will apologize to Ann Coulter. She’s certainly a knowledgeable and intelligent person and has been right on many issues. But on these, she’s flat wrong.

Rand Paul supports amnesty, bilingualism, and open borders, opposes employment verification

In recent weeks, Rand Paul has made a meteoric rise in Republican politics, dramatically raising his name recognition, winning (albeit by a slim margin) a CPAC straw poll, and successfully duping many conservatives (including some of my friends) into believing that he’s more sane and more practical than his nutty father, whom Republican voters rejected overwhelmingly in 2008 and 2012.

Sadly, these people are wrong. Rand Paul, like his father, is a leftist libertarian. His leftist brand of libertarianism is evident on many issues: deep defense cuts, supporting the cretinous “Balanced Budget Amendment”, supporting violations of states’ rights Paul’s pet issues, opposing action against Iran.

But on no issue is it more visible than on illegal immigration. Rand Paul supports a full-throated amnesty for illegal aliens (without calling it that way; he deceptively calls it “a pathway to citizenship”), bilingualism, and open borders, and opposes employment verification, including the very effective E-Verify Program.

Employers, including Big Business, are lobbying hard for amnesty and against E-Verify, because they love to hire illegal aliens; they can pay them much less than Americans and avoid federal and state employment laws.

But doesn’t Rand Paul realise that amnesty and bilingualism will only lead to bigger, more costly government? Don’t his supporters realize that?

Don’t they and their idol Rand Paul realize that amnesty (or “pathway to citizenship”, or whatever you want to call it) is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with limited Constitutional government (not to mention that it rewards lawbreaking, and a limited government – Constitutional or otherwise – cannot exist if the law is not obeyed)?

Don’t they and Rand Paul understand that amnesty will create 12-20 million new Democratic voters who will send the political Right (not just the GOP) and all conservatives to the political graveyard and give the Democrats a permanent, unbeatable majority?

As Ann Coulter rightly says, as soon as the nation starts to resemble California demographically, it will also resemble California politically.

To see what amnesty would mean politically, just look at California, where whites are now only 40% of the population – a “majority minority” state. Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has transformed California into such a liberal state that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Taxes are going in only one direction, the state is on the verge of bankruptcy, and there’s no one left to pay the bill anymore, because businesses are fleeing Commiefornia en masse.

Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is permanently lost to the GOP. The Dems control the governorship and have 2/3 majorities in the state legislature.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty is passed. The two major parties, as Ann Coulter rightly says, will be the Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Democratic Party and the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party.

Contrary to the popular canard that “Hispanics are natural conservatives/Republicans” and that “the Hispanic vote is winnable for the GOP”, they’re not and it’s not. The converse is the truth: Hispanics are natural liberals.

They are less likely than anyone but Jews to attend religious services and to oppose abortion and gay marriage. They are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock themselves, be poor, be dependent on the federal government for survival, commit crime, and go to prison. They depend on an entire cornucopia of federal programs to survive – from cradle to grave.

As Pat Buchanan points out, most Hispanic households are led by single mothers who, if they work, have no tax liability (due to the high tax-free treshold and the EITC), and if they don’t work, they receive welfare rolls and 99 weeks of unemployment checks. For food, she gets foodstamps and her children receive 2-3 “free” meals at school.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

Her children are educated for “free” K-12 and can apply for Pell Grants and student loans.

Why would these people vote for a party that promises to cut taxes they don’t pay, but pledges to cut government dependency programs they do “benefit” from and use? Doesn’t self-interest dictate voting for the party that pledges to let them keep using these programs and, if anything, promises them more “free” giveaways?

The vast majority of Hispanics are government dependents (i.e. ideal Democratic voters). Republicans will never beat the Democrats at the giveaway offering game.

Have you ever wondered, Dear Readers, why most Latin American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.) have socialist governments? Answer: Because most of their citizens are socialists.

Most Americans don’t know that decades ago, the Democrats began implementing their plan to create an unbeatable Democratic majority by importing millions of immigrants from the Third World while making it harder (nigh impossible) for well-educated, highly-skilled Europeans to immigrate to the US. This plan is close to being completed. Amnesty #2 would be the final step – and the final nail in the GOP’s coffin.

The Democrats did not, and do not, want to change their ideology or their policies; instead, they’ve decided to change the voters, and they’ve done so and continue to do so.

Someone will say, “But in 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote!” Yes, he did, but that’s not a great result. If repeated at future elections and if amnesty is passed, the GOP will still be doomed. Let’s do simple math.

Assuming that there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US, let’s say 44% of these people vote Republican once naturalized, and “only” 56% vote Democratic. That is, let’s assume they’ll vote Republican in George W. Bush numbers.

OK, here’s the math:

44%*12 million = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56%*12 million = 6.72 mn new Dem voters

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

 

So on net, the Dems would gain 1.44 mn new voters.

Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a GOP that were not suicidally inclined support such a policy?

Those who support amnesty, including Rand Paul, need to ask themselves only this question:

If there was ANY chance – even the slightest chance – that amnesty could help Republicans in ANY way whatsoever, do you think the Democrats would’ve supported it?

The answer is obvious. It’s a resounding “no”.

Rand Paul must not be allowed to win a GOP presidential or vice presidential nomination under any circumstances whatsoever. Nominating Rand Paul for President or Vice President would be an electoral suicide for the GOP and would be an utter rejection of all conservative principles the GOP has ever stood for.

Republicans Advocate Surrender After Defeat

Evidently Romney campaign consultants were paying way too much attention to Michelle Obama’s War on Cafeteria Lunch Ladies. Consequently, when her husband offered a campaign built around Bread & Circuses; they countered with healthy eating and free–range elephants.

A role reversal that proved fatal.

More than once I’ve heard discouraged conservatives complain that ignorant voters were responsible for re–electing Obama, but that’s simply not true. Misguided and short–sighted voters, yes, but certainly not ignorant.

Obama supporters voted for the candidate who gave them the most freebies. Union members voted for the Government Motors bailout and the prospect of “card check.”

Government employees voted for bigger government and its number one disciple. Hispanics voted for a freeze on deportation and amnesty for illegals. College students voted for low interest student loans and possible loan forgiveness.

Unmarried mothers voted for food stamps, welfare, free contraceptives and — for the sexually disorganized — federally–funded abortion. Homosexuals voted for homosexual marriage. And blacks voted for the black guy.

Now, proving there is no one more gullible than a panicked Republican, some of our “leaders” are considering amnesty for illegal aliens.

Amnesty for illegals will be called “immigration reform,” just as adulterers call fornication “marriage reform.” Passage will be equivalent to allowing a family who squatted on land inside a national park to keep the land as part of “ownership reform.” It wouldn’t be fair to evict them, don’t you know, because they built a house and their kids would have to change school districts.

Unfortunately for Republican leaders who put power before principle, amnesty is wrong for four reasons.

First it’s morally wrong. Rewarding lawbreakers, only encourages more lawbreaking, erodes respect for the rule of law and discriminates against potential legal immigrants who are waiting their turn. Amnesty also serves to take jobs from low income US citizens and depresses the wages of those that have jobs.

Secondly, it solves nothing. Democrats — who make short–term memory loss part of their governing philosophy — conveniently forget the US granted Hispanics a massive amnesty during the Reagan administration. That “never to be repeated” amnesty legalized over 4 million illegals. This final solution possessed such deterrent power that over 12 million illegals are demanding amnesty this time, a four–fold increase.

Third, amnesty will damage Republicans at the ballot box. Let’s assume 4 million of the approximately 12 million illegals are of voting age. These are not Republican votes in waiting, they are, as fellow columnist Mike Adams says, “undocumented Democrats.” All 4 million will be voting Democrat from now on.

It’s a fact the GOP never gets credit for anything involving civil rights. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed a larger percentage of Republicans supported the bill than Democrats, yet Democrats get all the credit. If I recall correctly Ronald Reagan was a Republican, yet even after the passage of amnesty during his administration, the GOP still has a problem with Hispanics.

Four, “socially conservative” Hispanics are like Iranian “moderate mullahs.” GOP “experts” claim Hispanic “family values” mean their natural home is the GOP. Yet on Sunday, November 4th, these “socially conservative” Hispanics sat in Catholic churches and heard homilies about the Obama administration forcing the church to violate basic Catholic beliefs. Then they rushed to the polls to vote for the most radical abortion–supporting president in history.

The only way for Republicans to profit from amnesty is to invest in companies producing the velvet Obama paintings that will soon be joining the velvet JFKs gracing the walls of many minority homes.

No wonder Democrats are so eager to cooperate with the GOP on this “bi–partisan reform” legislation.

Republicans simply cannot win a bidding war with Democrats and remain Republicans. It will take time for a values and civic virtues campaign to be successful, because changing public attitudes is a long-term project. So I suggest Republicans conduct asymmetrical electoral warfare.

Presidential election years have larger turnout that favors Democrats. Off–year elections have smaller turnout and give our base a larger impact. Nationally, during the education process, the GOP can concentrate on winning off–year elections and build up conservative margins in the US House, gain a Senate seat or two and defend the rest during Presidential years.

All the while concentrating our message on the benefits of individual liberty, personal responsibility and marketplace competition. Democrats and “progressives” are now using the ballot box to exploit the cultural pathologies their incompetent policies have created over the past 40 years. Over the short term it may prove to be an indestructible ideological loop.

But if conservatives aren’t in this fight over the long term, why are we in it at all?

How Immigration Ruined The Californian Republican Party

As we on the Right continue to ponder how we got handily beaten by a president with a dismal record, one of the areas that are salient in our rebuilding efforts rests with Hispanic voters.  About fifty thousand latinos turn eighteen every month, making this a key demographic Republicans must become competitive if we to survive as a political force.  Losing Latinos to Democratic candidates 73%-24% spells certain doom for the party.  This doesn’t mean we sell out on our principles.  Supporting full amnesty is a fool’s errand.  However, we may have to accept certain provisions on future immigration proposals. Provisions that create pathways to citizenship by creating benchmarks for immigrants who have served in the military, achieved a certain level of education, and don’t have criminal records seems like a good starting point concerning our outreach with Latinos.

Sen. Marco Rubio’s alternative Dream Act is another area where Republicans can debate whether it is sufficiently conservative, or in dire need of revision.  Regardless, if we continue with our perceived anti-immigrant ways, we are destined to become a nationalized version of the Republican Party of California, which was destroyed when Prop. 187 was passed in 1994.

The bill, detailed by Nancy H. Martis of the California Journal back in 1994, goes as follows:

Proposition 187 bans illegal immigrants from public social
services, non emergency health care and public education. Various state and
local agencies would be required to report anyone suspected of being an
illegal immigrant to the state attorney general and U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). The attorney general would be required to
maintain records and transmit reports to INS. Manufacturing, distributing or
selling false citizenship or residence documents illegal under existing
state law would become a felony. The proposal’s fiscal impact would be
felt three ways, the legislative analyst estimates. State and local
governments would realize savings from denying certain benefits and services
to persons who cannot document their citizenship or legal immigration status,
and this could amount to $200 million annually, based on INS estimates.
However, the state, local governments and schools would incur significant
costs to verify citizenship or immigration status of students, parents,
persons seeking health care services or social services, and persons who are
arrested. This could total tens of millions of dollars annually, with
first year costs considerably higher, potentially in excess of $100 million.
Finally, there would be a potential loss of federal funds up to $15
billion annually in federal money for education health and welfare programs
due to conflicts with federal requirements.

It was introduced by Republican assemblyman Dick Mountjoy and endorsed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson – which made it a key issue during his ’94 re-election bid.  While the bill passed, it had an overwhelming negative effect on the electorate.  First, it was the death knell for Republicans concerning statewide elections.  We never became competitive again, until Governor Schwarzenegger won his gubernatorial/recall bid in 2003.  The bill was declared unconstitutional, and killed with legal action.  The election of 1988 is still the last contest where California went Republican.  An ignominious footnote since the GOP was able to carry the state in 1960, ’68, ’72, ’76, ’80, and ’84.

The effects of Prop. 187 are still felt today – with the complete collapse of the two-party system in the state.

As Michael R. Blood of AP reported on Nov. 10:

Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They gained even more ground in Tuesday’s elections, picking up at least three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two other tight races — in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-educated physician who mobilized a district’s growing swath of Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack.

The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both, chambers in the Legislature.

 […]
Republican voter registration has dipped so low — less than 30 percent — that the party’s future state candidates will be hobbled from the start.

Republicans searching for a new direction after Mitt Romney’s defeat will inevitably examine whyPresident Barack Obama rolled up more than 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and 9 of 10 votes among blacks, essential ingredients in his victory. Women also supported Obama over Romney nationally and in California, where they broke for the president by 27 percentage points.

There is no better place to witness how demographic shifts have shaped elections than in California, the home turf of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan that just a generation ago was a reliably Republican state in presidential contests.

A surge in immigrants transformed the state, and its voting patterns. The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined has outnumbered whites since 1998 in California, and by 2020 the Hispanic population alone is expected to top that of whites. With Latinos, for example, voter surveys show they’ve overwhelmingly favored Democratic presidential candidates for decades. Similar shifts are taking place across the nation.

Another sign of the times:

 Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population, while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic, according to the census.

[…]

Romney “implemented a winning election strategy for 1980,” University of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement issued by the school. “If you look at the demographics and voting proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today.”

Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts in California, a trend analysts predict will continue.

California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that time. You’d have to go back to that year to find a Republican presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush.

Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the vote counting continues.

[…]

Still, Democrats believe they have the state’s demographics on their side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse population.

More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area — tomorrow’s voters — 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic.

We shall see how California Democrats exert their new power.  If you’re a mentally competent person, I wouldn’t suggest taking a bet that the economic situation will improve.

While Heather MacDonald wrote in National Review that  while “a March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration,” Califronia proves that such perceived anti-immingrant measures can lead to disastrous results.

Then again, she did touch upon our image problem with Latinos:

Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.

Yes, we have work to do.  The fact that entitlement reform will be part of our outreach strategy makes me more optimistic we can win them over, or at least enough to win an election.  Republican immigration policy needs to be smart and comprehensive.  We can start by not passing anymore legislation that takes states off the table in national elections.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

The GOP Got Punk’d

It’s over.

So far, I have seen the media, libertarians and independent voters, fraud, and liberal thuggery blamed for the GOP loss last night. None of these, individually or collectively, is to blame for the fact that Obama was re-elected. The blame lies in our own inability to combat the culture of dependency and present a vision that combats the plays on fear that liberals use to win support from the average voter.

Women and Hispanic voters came out big for Obama. They came out despite Obama’s broken promises on immigration reform and despite his own White House employment gender disparity. Why? Because his very effective campaign of fear convinced them that the GOP fully intended to deport every immigrant and tear apart families and to summarily shove women barefoot into the kitchen, pregnant with rapist spawn. We have done nothing to give them any reason to think differently. Political campaigns, at any level, are no place to espouse personal ideology that will not be entertained in policy. As much as I cannot stand liberal ideology, suggesting legislating of morality is never going to sit well with a majority of Americans.

The right, collectively, allowed an out-of-touch group of political elites hand pick a nominee that didn’t represent anyone except themselves. While I truly believe that Mitt Romney is an excellent businessman, a great man, and loves America, he never represented the mainstream right. His nomination was exemplary of everything that is wrong with the GOP today. He ran his campaign as the personification of everything that the left was demonizing. There was nothing wrong with Mitt’s business dealings in Bain or his religious ideology, except that they are the very things that the left uses in terrifying liberals into entitlement submission.

If the right want to win, from State offices to the Presidency, it is time they came to grips with the fact that their current and proposed representatives are more RINO than Republican. The GOP says it is the party of smaller government and less spending. Nothing in Romney’s five point plan indicated either of those pieces of the Grand Old Party’s platform. The cheerleaders who jumped on the Romney Express to failure endorsed a candidate contrary to everything that they fought for in the last four years. Romney was not a moderate in the GOP party… he IS the GOP party in it’s current state. You want the GOP to have the confidence of the majority? Hold them to their platform, and stop accepting everything they shove down your throats.

I listened to Romney debate. I read Romney’s speeches. I know his governing record. The left did, too. Did you? I heard three things in his Five Point Plan: Hope and change, more spending, more government. And, as far as the left was concerned, every time Romney or Ryan said “Five Point Plan”, they may as well have been saying “Nine. Nine. Nine”

Can we do this right, this time? In the next four years, can we make the GOP the party of smaller government? Can we get them to put up candidates who can articulate the message of individual responsibility and personal liberty without invoking images of midnight raids to deport anyone with brown skin or a raped victim forced to give birth to her attacker’s child? Can we use pop culture our advantage by encouraging film, music, and entertainment that espouses family values and responsibility? Can we stop making excuses as to why we have failed to make our own message appealing? Can we?

Disagree? Agree? Want to hear more? Join me tomorrow night, at 10pm EST on In Deep to start on the road to winning between now and 2016.

Romney is Gaining Among Hispanics

According to a new poll, Mitt Romney is gaining with Hispanic Voters.

“This week’s impreMedia-Latino Decisions tracking poll found slight gains for presidential candidate Mitt Romney in battleground states with 33% certain to or thinking about voting for him,” Latino Decisions reports.

(AP)

Even though 33 percent is a weaker showing compared to Obama’s per Hispanics, it is a much better number than in previous weeks and months.”Just before the beginning of the Republican National Convention in Tampa presidential candidate Mitt Romney continues to overwhelmingly lose the Latino vote and has low levels of favorability among the majority of the Latino electorate. The first weekly tracking poll of Latino registered voters by Latino Decisions and impreMedia reveals that 65% would vote to re-elect President Barack Obama and 26% would prefer the Republican alternative offered by Romney,” Latino Decisions reported on August 27.

However, even as the polls show that Romney is gaining among Hispanics, he still falls well short of Obama.

“Fifty-one percent of Latino voters in ten battleground states said they trust Obama and the Democrats more to make the right decisions and improve economic conditions, compared to 27% for Romney and Republicans. When combined with voters in non-battleground states, the numbers jumped to 72% and 20% respectively, a significant increase from 4 weeks ago when overall 59% said they trusted Obama and Democrats more versus 30% for Romney and Republicans to fix the economy,” Latino Decisions reports on the new poll.

Follow Chris on Twitter

Gallup: Jobs #1 Hispanic Priority

All the news last week didn’t change the fact that Hispanics don’t put immigration as their number one priority. Instead, they are most concerned with jobs and health coverage. President Obama may want to review the most recent Gallup poll and perhaps take a pivot toward jobs during this election season.

Or not.

Maybe this is a prime opportunity for Mitt Romney and the Republicans to chip away at some of the Latino support for the current president. In fact, many would argue that current events should already help draw the strongly Catholic minority toward the Conservative side of the ballot. Hispanics may be surprised that their beliefs: conservative religious, importance of families, and strong work ethic are very in line with the GOP platform. Additionally, Republicans are not against immigration, instead they are trying to control a tsunami of illegal border crossings when so many others are waiting to enter the country through legal channels. After all, this is a country made up of immigrants.

Hispanics may also be surprised to learn that unions, who once worked hard to benefit the underpaid workers, now seem to be focused more on preserving their strength and leaders benefits and less concerned with the individuals. The caste system of places like Mexico, though less defined than some countries still make it difficult for the poor to rise to a higher bracket. Understanding this, immigrants from Central America (and Cuba especially), should be wary of a party that pushes entitlement programs.  Handouts don’t encourage personal responsibility. Instead they promote a lackadaisical attitude which takes away the desire for a better life and replaces it with an acceptance of the status quo and continued dependence on others. In the end, as in Cuba, the government owns you and everything you do. Contrast this to the many small businesses owned and operated by minorities. Independence, hard work, and the idea of growing as big as one wishes are more in line with Republican ideals than Democrats.

Now is the time for Republicans to reach out to this large voting group and let them know this is not a rich versus poor campaign but one pushing for more personal responsibility and individual rights. Job opportunities for all are a priority of the GOP.

Born here or immigrants, Hispanics we know are usually not looking for a hand out but rather the opportunity to live the American Dream.

White: The New Minority

According to a new census bureau report, whites of European ancestry account for less than half of newborn children in the united states. For the first time in America’s history, Caucasians are no longer the largest newborn generation.

Demographics have been changing in the United States for decades. Anyone over the age of fifty would have grown up in a country largely dominated by white and black citizenry. Those of generation X, generation Y, the millennials and younger grew up a nation with a much more hispanic population.

Hispanics are the fastest growing and second largest demographic in the United States behind non-Hispanic whites. The reason – white families are having few babies while Hispanic families are having more. On average, white mothers gave birth to 1.8 babies per mom while Hispanic women gave birth to 2.4.

While many point to a younger Hispanic average age as a root cause of a higher birth rate, it may actually be simpler than that – their belief system. Hispanics are overwhelmingly pro-life Catholics – abortion is not as socially acceptable as it is in other groups. Catholic families are also much less likely to use birth control.

As this new generation grows, it will ultimately spell the end of notion of America as a largely Caucasian population. Non-Hispanic whites will simply be one of several minorities that make up the nation’s citizenry – which could cause problems for affirmative action programs, minority business designations and other social justice programs based on the concept of “minority”. How will those determinations be made once all races are in the minority?

Whites of European decent still make up a large portion of American society – roughly 70%. What this new report shows is that in just a few generations, that will change drastically.

These are Not the Charts Obama is Looking For

Both Gallup and Rasmussen have completed surveys that show that the President is losing his bid for re-election with so many groups, so many ways and oh so quickly.

Gallup has the President sliding to just 38% approval, his worst showing ever in the Gallup survey. When looked at as a trend, the imagery worsens.

Rasmussen Reports also summed up their daily results saying, “This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama. The previous low was -24 reached yesterday and also in September 2010. Additionally, the level of Strong Approval matches the lowest yet recorded.”

When digging into the numbers, the picture does not improve. To win an election in America, you have to win the swing vote. Obama hasn’t only lost the middle, has become the polarizing figure he railed against when he stood George W. Bush up as a straw man to beat in the 2008 election.

What should be especially of concern to the Obama campaign, is how even his attempts to buy votes is being rebuked. On August 18th, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security was directed to halt all deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants who are attending school, have family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care, and allow them to apply for work permits. Obama had failed to deliver the highly unpopular DREAM act and may have been hoping to buy-off the Hispanic community with a the gift of not enforcing current law. How did that community react? Unfavorably.

Presidential job approval is an important barometer, but with the entirety of the main stream media declaring the Republican field “weak”, certainly this won’t hurt his chances for another four years in the White House.. or will it?

Even Ron Paul, largely thought to be a fringe candidate, is only a few points under Obama in the polls and within the survey’s margin of error. Obama is in trouble whether he admits it or not.

Attack after mudslinging attack isn’t working, the president’s policies are failing and a string of broken promises may be coming home to roost.